TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether there was a violation of the principles of natural justice in the adjudicating authority passing the impugned order without affording proper opportunity of personal hearing; (ii) Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be exercised notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Issue (i): Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice for lack of clear notice and denial of opportunity of personal hearing.
Analysis: The record shows issuance of an intimation specifying the date of personal hearing and a statement that the matter would be decided on merits if there was non-appearance. The reply filed by the petitioner was considered by the adjudicating authority. A communication seeking personal hearing that was dated after the impugned order was not shown to have been received prior to the order. The factual record does not support a finding of ambiguity in the intimation or denial of hearing.
Conclusion: There was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition warrants interference despite the existence of a statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: An efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available under the statute. Interference by writ is appropriate only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances were established on the facts presented.
Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised and the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the available statutory remedy.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to avail the statutory appeal remedy in accordance with law; no expression of opinion is made on the merits of the underlying tax dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal remedy exists and no exceptional circumstances or proven denial of natural justice are shown, interference by writ under Article 226 is unwarranted.
TaxTMI 
